Our motto: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding

If your Perception Is Reality Then Lead with Authenticity

“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” – Albert Einstein

“Everything you see or hear or experience in any way at all is specific to you. You create a universe by perceiving it, so everything in the universe you perceive is specific to you.” – Douglas Adams

Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity which is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another.
The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!

Do not use all caps on the internet unless to highlight a point because it is shouting. All caps is considered shouting on the internet. Shouting is not polite. Therefore, it is bad netiquette to use all caps on the internet because shouting is not polite.


It is Sunday 25 of March 2012, more poignant because for some bizarre reason and logic I lost an hour of my life. Thank God for Russia for redressing this madness. If Medvedev and Putin could read the writing on the wall then I think is only logical, civilised and simply right for us to not ignore the writing on the wall and continue to sheepishly, childishly and destructively follow ‘STOPPING THE CLOCK” which as only the Americans can have it a controversial practice in legislative procedure in which a legislature literally or notionally stops the clock (or moves the hands backwards), usually for the purpose of meeting a constitutional or statutory deadline. The official clock is stopped by agreement of the ‘powers that be’ without any motion or announcement one minute before the designated hour. Sometimes it is done to allow more time for lobbying or deal-making to obtain the necessary votes for one side to prevail on a measure. Some legislatures actually stop the clock, and others simply use it as a metaphor for continuing business after a time deadline has passed. Stopping the clock is also sometimes done for ceremonial purposes to ensure that both houses of a bicameral legislature adjourn simultaneously.

We are not going to adopt this policy on PERCEPTION. As Margarate Thatcher famously said THIS LADY IS NOT FOR TURNING SO IS PERCEPTION.

We are bent on maintaining this group’s allure, educative, thought provoking, respect, academically inclined topics, intelligent captivating topics and debates, tasteful humour, brilliance and the many more exceptionally wonders of perception. To say we are going to fight against the desctructive forces so unavoidable in large groups is an understatement. I always warn members of a group ” NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF STUPID AND DESTRUCTIVE PEOPLE IN LARGE GROUPS. Enough WE’VE ALL MADE OUR POINTS LETS STAY FOCUS



An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.

Halo effect

Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a human cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, e.g. treating an attractive person as more intelligent or more honest. People tend to see others as tending to all good or tending to all bad. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of their arguments, even if the bad trait is irrelevant to the arguments.


Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions. However, verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is neither ad hominem nor a fallacy.

Examples:”You can’t believe John when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn’t even have a job.””Candidate Jane’s proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003.””What would Mary know about fixing cars? She is a woman.” (an example of Ad feminam) An abusive ad hominem can apply to a judgment of cultural works or academic efforts based on the behavior or unconventional political beliefs of an artist, author, or musician, or the taste of an infamous person who loved a certain work.

Examples: Sylvia Plath was a depressive who eventually committed suicide, so her works are unreadable.


Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source). The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.


Mandy Rice-Davies’s famous testimony during the Profumo Affair, “Well, he would [say that], wouldn’t he?”, is an example of a valid circumstantial argument. Her point was that a man in a prominent position, accused of an affair with a callgirl, would deny the claim whether it was true or false. His denial, in itself, carries little evidential weight against the claim of an affair. Note, however, that this argument is valid only insofar as it devalues the denial; it does not bolster the original claim. To construe evidentiary invalidation of the denial as evidentiary validation of the original claim is fallacious (on several different bases, including that of argumentum ad hominem); however likely the man in question would be to deny an affair that did in fact happen, he could only be more likely to deny an affair that never happened.

Ad feminam

An ad feminam is an ad hominem attack, used in attempt to defeat a woman’s argument An example would be the response “Is it your time of the month?” to a woman making an argument. The term is most frequently used in this sense in feminist philosophy, to note systemic tendencies to discredit opinions of women. As such, it is similar in nature and purpose to such feminist neologisms as “herstory”. The term was coined in 1963 and is modeled on the much older ad hominem, but takes into account the genderised nature of the rhetorical and dismissive gesture.

“Ahmad’s characteristic method here of reductive ad hominem and ad feminam critique subverts his accompanying claim to Marxist subjectivity”Almost any ad hominem (or in this case, ad feminam) response such as this one invalidates the content of the patient’s viewpoint” In Latin the word homo (of which hominem is the accusative case) has the gender-neutral meaning of “a human being”, “a person” (unlike the words in Romance languages it gave rise to, such as French homme and Italian uomo). A translation of ad hominem that preserves this gender-neutrality is “to the person”. In contrast, ad feminam is gender-specific and used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women.

Tu quoque

Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: “You also”) refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is fallacious because it does not disprove the argument; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony to support the argument.

For example, a father may tell his son not to start smoking as he will regret it when he is older, and the son may point out that his father is or was a smoker. This does not alter the fact that his son may regret smoking when he is older.

Guilt by association

Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument. This form of the argument is as follows:

Source S makes claim C.Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.

Questions about the notion of an ad hominem fallacy

Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject’s words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism. RESPECT.


They just like you and I are humans and have the right to exist.

The presence position of gay people in our cultures and societies Africa and the world beyond is historical and contingent. Religion which preaches tolerance, love thy neighbor as yourself and nonjudgemental hasn’t lived up to what it preaches. All of the main monotheistic traditions contain strong and contradictory currents of opinion about homosexuality, ranging from unremitting hostility to much more understanding and sympathy than was found in the secular world until recently.

My 85 grandmother got it right when she said “ Wuna live dem na God make dem too like wuna. Dem nova fine wuna palava, na wuna di so so follow them with palava and tok. If man like man wusa trouble deh? If man like woman wusa trouble deh? If woman like woman wusa trouble deh? all man like e tin.


Taking a leaf from Austrian philosopher Voegelin fugitive from Nazism who saw little worth in any form of liberalism attracted much American conservative interest during and beyond his 20-year U.S. sojourn). Since he held that humanity’s relationship with transcendent reality was the motor of history, and thus that religion was fundamental to society–specifically, Christianity was fundamental to Western civilization–Christian intellectuals, too, were intrigued. But Voegelin deflected all isms, considering conservatism a shallow reaction to liberalism, and he never personally professed any faith.

I and many others are getting fed up with all the God and religion bashing on here lest we forget it is personal to each and every one of us. Why don’t the Christians, Muslims etc ever go out of their way to be insultive to our believes or nonbelieves whatever they are. Haven’t we all noticed how so much more civil they are to their fellow members than us proclaimed atheist, Secular Humanist? Perception is fast becoming the rule book of how not to be an atheist, Secular Humanist, un believers. What we all forget is none of us know what the truth is, the religious books and counter books were all written and edited by men with set believes, it is the height of ignorance to think we know everything.

I am secularist therefore appeals to natural reason, and not to divine law but my brand of secularism has been hijacked by the militant wing if going by what defines us are anything but rational, reasonable, composed, respectful of humanity. It is only wise to always remind myself that natural reason is by definition something shared by both sides in the argument. But the militant secularist takes for granted that “the religious” have no access to reason. There can be no reasoning with his opponents. All he can do is to repeat himself more loudly until the idiots understand.Militant Atheist secularists as we are now called are no real threat to religion, a point stupidly ignored.

I refuse to have an emotional investment in the extirpation of religious belief in others. I discovered rationality as a seven year old but it doesn’t give me the right to slap the daylight out of everyone who is religious. I believe strongly in self realization, there is no reason to be berated about what we believe individually,. Some will discover Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins the way that I did and come to the realization that solutions to all the world’s problems, which are only held back by the stupidity and self-interest of the old, will always appeal to people. Lest we forget Secularist and Athiest make up only 10% of the global population so are of no threat to the future of religion


Possession of a prejudice may or may not impoverish you, but, either way, it doesn’t enrich you. My possession of a place in a global world and a united Cameroon and Africa enriches me to the extent that it deprives anyone degenerates to ISMS


Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the devil; for which reason I have long since as good as renounced it: Thomas Carlyle

Respect is all we ask for. Sarcasm can have the same intended effect without foul language vulgarity personal attacks and cronyism.

As defined Sarcasm is “a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt”, usually conveyed through irony or understatement. Most authorities distinguish sarcasm from irony; however, others argue that sarcasm may or often does involve irony or employs ambivalence.

In sarcasm, ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes.



It should never be tolerated. Many organisations have a zero tolerance to profanity and still flourish. In private that’s your cup of tea but on a public forum it is converted to histotoxic hypoxia or Cyanide poisoning, suffocates debates, stifles the oxygen of any arguments.


Not my words but so true. Curse words are meant to express anger, disgust or condemnation of something. To use such as adverbs or adjectives to describe or comment on everything such as ” I had a #**%@ time last night.” or “That movie was so #!%##” or ” Hey M***! F***! how are you doing?” is considered by most people to be lazy speech and causes the user to appear to be uneducated.

Use of foul or obscene language at inappropriate times or places can taint your reputation, cost you friendships, or even ruin your chance at advancement in a career. If you care about your reputation clean up your language. Bad language can get you or your business into legal trouble. Certain forms of broadcast have strict rules on language and decency standards. If broken can lead to fines or lawsuits by governing agencies. Some businesses have decency policies that you must agree to. If set forth as a contract you sign prior to employment and you decide to “blow off steam” or be careless with your language and it results in loss of income for your employer such as losing a large account, you may find your self not only out of a job but on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

If you are a role model such as a parent, teacher, or mentor of children, no matter what other lessons or values you wish them to learn they will copy your habits both good and bad. If bad language is a habit replace it with less offensive words or phrases. Try substitutions as a transition


Is cyber bullying“Harmless Fun”? or something far more sinister? One in five adults have been victimised online, yet many of those doing harm see it as a harmless joke. So do we take cyber bullying seriously enough? Do we think of it, as somehow easier to deal with, than bullying in real life? Nasty comments left online can be seen by a huge audience – but there’s no physical harm. Just how much damage are the Net Bullies doing? If everyone cared and nobody cried, if everyone loved and nobody lied, if everyone shared and swallowed their pride then we’d see the day nobody died. From a victim of BULLYING.

A recent development in social aggression is cyber bullying, acted out by both sexes. In this type of aggression, the perpetrator uses social networking tools – email, Facebook, Twitter – to inflict damage, particularly the spreading of socially harmful rumors of others. Recent reports of several suicides by young adolescents who were targeted speak to the damaging power of this kind of aggression.

Bullying is a common problem that affects people of all ages. Most victims of bullying keep it to themselves so it is important to know what to look out for to be able to spot when someone is being bullied. The definition here is very simplistic because bullying is all of these things but is repeated and involves a power difference. Similarly it is not bullying if an incident happens only once e.g. a falling out, a one off fight.

Verbal bullying which I called Female Terrorism and have been a victim of is the use of words to hurt, intimidate, or insult a victim. “Kick him where it hurts” – “Punch him harder” – “Pin him down till he yells uncle”. These are some of the sounds associated with male aggression. In fact, the word aggression was only applied to the males of our species, expressed in physical action and captured in words like hitting, pushing, punching, beating and ganging-up. Included in any description was anger that seemed to be the force behind the aggressive act.

I write as someone who has been a victim of bullying. I wasn’t ready or prepared for the , and yes bullies have a habit surprising their victims. I am strong so I could take it and didn’t shy away from the bullying antics, just wooshed over my head but believe me some days I wanted to curl and hide my ugly face under my duvet. Then I thought if everyone says you are beautiful why would I believe one probably insecure person because that is what bullies are INSECURE. Against my friends advice decided to confront the bully head on. Bullying is very upsetting I had the misfortune to come up against a very nasty person.

Comparison between male and female aggression shows strong and obvious similarities. Motivation for both groups usually includes: a desire for power, for control, for achieving greater social status and popularity, jealousy, fear and derailing competition. Aggressive behavior for both male and female children can be found as early as preschool age, is most prevalent in adolescence and can, continue well into adulthood.

Both sexes form social structures that lead different members to assume specific roles and characteristics. For example, in a female group the one with the power is like the “QUEEN BEE” and “LION KING” with a contingent of followers. Her/his friends do what she/he wants, she/he is charming when she/he wants to be, she’s manipulatively affectionate, she/he takes no responsibility for hurting another’s feelings, and defines right and wrong by the loyalty or disloyalty shown to her/he. She/he is usually the one who decides who should be the victim.

**** Common friends face the dilemma of those who feel helpless to help the victim because of their need to not stir the anger of the Queen Bee and LION KING and become alienated from the group.***

The effects of social aggression can be longer lasting and more damaging than physical aggression. Since the “weapons” have a stealth nature to them, there is less possibility of anticipating the specifics of an attack and fewer actions to defend against an attack. This negative effect is particularly damaging during adolescence when the importance of acceptance in a peer group is maximized. Adding to the pain inflicted on the victim is the lack of support by teachers and other adults who view the bully — often a popular and charismatic young woman — as innocent of such negative behavior.

Thus the strong positive reputation of the bully makes it difficult for a victim to get validation of the bullying and causes a victim to suffer the additional pain of not being believed and not getting any support.

Relational aggression negatively impacts “mirroring” – a peer group’s reflected reaction to an individual. Caught in the web of punishing aggression by peers, a young person’s internal sense of self becomes diminished and felt as being “a loser” – “a reject” and “not as good”. Self-esteem is low and feelings of insecurity may persist throughout life. What is also affected is the ability to trust as an adult and to be free to be open to close relationships.

Hope you’ll continue to join me on this journey. And hope your interactions are free of both social and physical aggression.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s